A Comment on Bhupinder Singh v. U.T. of Chandigarh

09/Jun/2019 12:32:51am

1|PageA Comment on Bhupinder Singh v. U.T. of Chandigarh1Kunal ShahAndrew Ashworth and Jeremy Horder in Principles of Criminal Law have pointed that it is the duty of the legislature to see that the offences are sub-divided and labeled so as to represent fairly the nature and magnitude of law breaking. Fairness demands that the offenders be labeled and punished in proportion to their wrongdoing. The label is important both for public communication and, within the criminal justice system, for deciding appropriate maximum penalties, for evaluating previous convictions, classification in prison and so on.2If a society draws distinction between two criminal acts then it is the duty of the legislature to see that same distinction is also provided by the statute. Everyone who causes death is not a murderer and the law must recognise the difference between ‘intentional killing’ and ‘killing by accident’. Labelling would be unfair if it exaggerates or misleads others about the gravity of the act in which the person was involved. The strength of the principle is to ensure that arguments of proportionality, fairness to individuals, and the proper confinement of executive and judicial discretion are taken seriously when offences with broad definition and high maximum penalties are under consideration. Undoubtedly, the object of the court is to see that the crime does not go unpunished and the victim of the crime and the society have satisfaction that justice has been done to them3, but a person should be punished for the act which he has done and not for anything else.